Standards and Ethics in Managing Change Study Analysis Case Study Analysis – Change Leadership In your weekly readings, Cameron (2006) writes “When nothin

Standards and Ethics in Managing Change Study Analysis Case Study Analysis – Change Leadership

In your weekly readings, Cameron (2006) writes “When nothing is stable…people tend to make up their own rules…they make sense of the ambiguity and chaos they experience by deciding for themselves what is real and what is appropriate” (p. 317).

He then argues that Ethics requires Virtuousness as a complimentary fixed point to guide Leaders in change situations.

What do you think? Argue for or against Cameron’s position on the need for Virtue as a guide for change leadership. In addition to the course readings, research at least one example from any field or profession that illustrates your position. (e.g. Enron, Lehman Brothers, military example, etc).

Your paper must follow these guidelines:

2-3 page paper, APA format with a minimum of two references.
The first page of your paper will be a cover sheet correctly formatted according to APA guidelines.
The second page will include an Abstract.
This essay will use 1-inch margins, Times New Roman 12-point font, and double spacing.
Any citations MUST be correctly formatted according to APA guidelines (there should be at least two, documenting where you got the information for your report).
Do NOT use an automated citation manager to perform this function. Do it manually for this assignment and check your formatting against available GU approved APA resources
Excluding the cover page and references, this report must be at least 2 pages of written text. The entire paper must be your original work. ? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2006, Vol. 5, No. 3, 317–323.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Good or Not Bad: Standards
and Ethics in Managing
Change
KIM CAMERON
University of Michigan
Newly emerging research in the field of positive organizational scholarship (POS) is
beginning to demonstrate why an emphasis on virtuousness, not merely ethics, is
necessary for successful organizational performance. I explain one reason why positive
practices, not merely the absence of negative or harmful practices, should be emphasized
in the management curriculum and implemented by leaders of 21st century
organizations.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
ocean, likely without even knowing he was headed
toward the water. He was unable to manage the
continuously changing position of his airplane
without a standard that remained unchanged.
MANAGING CHANGE REQUIRES FIXED POINTS
The technology currently exists to put the equivalent of a full-size computer in a wristwatch, or to
inject the equivalent of a laptop computer into the
bloodstream. The newest computers are relying on
etchings onto molecules instead of silicone wafers.
The mapping of the human genome is probably the
greatest source for change, for not only can a banana now be changed into an agent to inoculate
people against malaria, but new organ development and physiological regulation promises to
dramatically alter population life styles. Over 100
animals have been patented to date, and 4 million
new patent applications related to bioengineering
are filed each year (Enriquez, 2000). Almost no one
dares predict the changes that will occur in the
next 10 years. Moreover, not only is change ubiquitous and unpredictable, but almost everyone
also assumes that its velocity will increase exponentially (Quinn, 2004; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).
Unfortunately, when everything is changing,
change becomes impossible to manage. Without a
stable, unchanging reference point, direction and
progress are indeterminate. Airplane piloting offers an instructive metaphor. Without a stable, unchanging referent such as land or the horizon, it is
impossible to steer a plane. Pilots with no visual or
instrumentation contact with a fixed point are unable to navigate. Consider the last flight of John
Kennedy, Jr., who began to fly up the New England
coast at dusk. He lost sight of land and, when it
grew dark, the horizon line as well. The result was
disorientation, and he flew his plane into the
Unfortunately, when everything is
changing, change becomes impossible to
manage.
The same disorientation afflicts individuals and
organizations in situations where there are no unchanging referents. When nothing is stable—no
clear fixed points or undisputed guiding principles
exist—people are left with nothing by which to
steer. It becomes impossible to tell up from down or
progress from regress. When nothing is stable—
that is, an absence of fixed points, dependable
principles, or stable benchmarks—people tend to
make up their own rules (Weick, 1993). They make
sense of the ambiguity and chaos they experience
by deciding for themselves what is real and what
is appropriate— based on criteria such as personal
past experience, immediate payoff, expediency, or
personal reward (March, 1994).
In the ethical arena, it has become clear recently
that in high pressure, high-velocity environments,
some individuals in the energy-trading, telecommunications, financial services, and accounting
industries simply made up their own rules. They
ended up cheating, lying, waffling, or claiming
naivete?, not only because it was to their economic
advantage, but also because they had created
their own rationale for what was acceptable. They
317
318
Academy of Management Learning & Education
operated in rapidly evolving, complex, and highpressure environments where rules and conditions
changed constantly. Although their actions are
now judged to be unethical and harmful to others,
within the rationale they had created for themselves, those actions made perfect sense at the
time (Mitchell, 2001).
As an example, Maurice (Hank) Greenberg, an
icon in the insurance industry and CEO and chairman of America’s largest insurance company,
American International Group, was forced to resign recently because he personally orchestrated a
complex transaction that regulators now believe
unfairly elevated the value of AIG’s stock. In a
transaction with Warren Buffet’s General Reinsurance 5 years earlier, Greenberg indicated that he
was merely trying to “shore-up AIG’s reserves,” but
he operated in a way that was deceptive and
crossed the ethical line. Unremitting and escalating demands for financial growth, changing financial practices, and fluid accounting principles created a condition where Greenberg felt justified in
his complicated maneuvering (Valdmanis, 2005).
He merely defined reality in a way that provided
an advantage to AIG. Widely publicized examples
from Enron, Freddy Mac, Tyco, Global Crossing,
Texaco, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom and other
firms replicate this pattern. Leaders created rationales meant to create a legitimate advantage, even
while violating ethical standards.
Such conditions illustrate why ethics, standards,
rules, and social responsibility have become so
important in governing organizational and managerial behavior. Ethical reforms have led to,
among other things, the Sarbanes–Oxley legislation—widely considered to be an enormous cost
and productivity drain on U.S. companies because
of its requirements for documentation and oversight—and an emphasis on corporate social responsibility which has motivated organizations to
address troublesome issues in the environment
(e.g., pollution, poverty, health care, environmental
sustainability); redress existing problems (e.g.,
cleaning up waterways); or work to prevent harm
(e.g., filtering smokestacks). In other words, rules
and standards meant to guide what is right and
wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, legal and
illegal have escalated in the interest of identifying
fixed points. Consequently, they are receiving
more and more attention in the curricula of schools
of business.
ETHICS AS AN INSUFFICIENT FIXED POINT
The problem is standards that avoid harm are not
the same as standards that lead to doing good. For
September
example, Bradley, Brief, and Smith-Crowe (2005)
differentiated between organizations that are
“good” versus those that are “not bad.” To date, the
dominant (although not exclusive) emphasis in the
ethics literature has been on avoiding harm, fulfilling contracts, and obeying the law (Handselsman, Knapp, & Gottlieb, 2002; Paine, 2003). That is,
in practice, ethics are understood and implemented as duties (Rawls, 1971). They are usually
specifications designed to avoid injury or prevent
damage (Orlikowski, 2000). Ghoshal (2005: 77) went
so far as to argue that the dominant management
theories are based on harm-avoiding assumptions
at best and an amoral ideology at worst. Current
management ideology, he argued, “is essentially
grounded in a set of pessimistic assumptions
about both individuals and institutions—a ‘gloomy
vision’ (Hirschman, 1970) that views the primary
purpose of social theory as one of solving the ‘negative problem’ of restricting the social costs arising
from human imperfections.” In other words, ethical
regulations (and even management theory), are
accused of focusing, by and large, on the duties
and obligations of individuals and organizations
to avoid harm.
The problem is standards that avoid
harm are not the same as standards that
lead to doing good.
Unfortunately, rules and standards that initially
appear to guide ethical obligations and socially
responsible action may actually lead to the reverse. For example, unions often “work to rule”—
doing only what is specified in contracts and
rules—as a substitute for going on strike. This pattern of behavior quickly destroys normal organizational functioning. Similarly, following the letter of
the law in accounting practices, environmental
pollution standards, or performance appraisal systems often leads to the opposite of the intended
outcome—in particular, recalcitrance, rigidity, resistance, and rebellion (Cameron, 1998). Moreover,
specifying ways to prevent injurious outcomes is
subject to change as conditions change—as in the
cases of rules governing civil rights, death, marriage, and financial reporting. Hence, ethics may
not serve as an adequate fixed point and may not
always identify universalistic standards. Rules
meant to specify duty to avoid harm may be inadequate standards because they change and do not
always lead to desirable outcomes (Caza, Barker,
& Cameron, 2004).
Put more succinctly, avoiding the bad is not the
2006
Cameron
same as pursuing the good, and a central argument here is that ethical standards must be supplemented with another standard referred to as a
virtuousness standard. The value of distinguishing
these two conditions is illustrated in Figure 1. Consider a continuum in which three points are identified—a condition of negative deviance on the left,
a normal or expected condition in the center, and a
positively deviant or highly desirable condition on
the right. This continuum illustrates the difference
between ethics—traditionally defined as an absence of harm—and virtuousness—the perpetuation of goodness (see Cameron, 2003).
Put more succinctly, avoiding the bad is
not the same as pursuing the good, and a
central argument here is that ethical
standards must be supplemented with
another standard referred to as a
virtuousness standard.
To understand the continuum, think first of the
human body. The large majority of medical research, and almost all of a physician’s time, is
spent on the gap between the left point on the
continuum (illness) and the middle point (health),
which represents an absence of illness or injury.
Relatively little scientific attention is given to the
gap between physiological health (middle point)
and vitality or wellness (right-hand point). Mayne
(1999), for example, found that studies of the relationship between negative phenomena and health
outnumbered studies of the relation between positive phenomena and health by 11 to 1. More than
90% of National Institute of Health-funded research
319
focuses on how to close the gap between a state of
illness and a state where illness is absent.
The same is true of psychology. Seligman (2002)
reported that more than 99% of published psychological research in the last 50 years has focused on
the gap between the left and middle points on the
continuum— overcoming depression, anxiety,
stress, or emotional difficulties. Relatively little attention has been paid to the gap between a condition of psychological or emotional health and a
state of vitality, flourishing, or “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Most of what is known about human
physiology and psychology, in other words, relates
to avoiding or overcoming illness and harm—similar to the emphasis in the ethics literature. Unethical behavior produces harm, violates principles,
and does damage. Ethical behavior usually refers
to an absence of harm— behaving consistently, being trustworthy, not damaging others, addressing
or redressing societal problems, fulfilling one’s
duty (Ghoshal, 2005; Caza, Barker, & Cameron,
2004). However, the right side of the continuum
refers to conditions that extend beyond the avoidance of harm or the maintenance of the current
system. Terms such as honor, goodness, benevolence, and ennoblement describe a condition of
virtuousness.
VIRTUOUSNESS AS A SUPPLEMENTAL FIXED
POINT
Virtuousness in this sense is what individuals aspire to be when they are at their very best. The
word is derived from the Greek are?te, which means
excellence. It refers to that which represents the
highest of the human condition. States of virtuous-
? ——————————————————————? ——————————————————————?
Negative Deviance
Normal
Positive Deviance
HEALTH
Physiological
Psychological
Illness
Illness
Health
Health
Vitality
Flow
Unethical
Dishonest
Ethical
Trustworthy
Virtuous
Honoring
BEHAVIOR
Ethics
Integrity
FIGURE 1
A Deviance Continuum
320
Academy of Management Learning & Education
ness represent conditions of flourishing and vitality (Lipman-Blumen, & Leavitt, 1999), meaningful
purpose (Becker, 1992), ennoblement (Eisenberg,
1990), personal flourishing (Weiner, 1993), and that
which leads to health, happiness, transcendent
meaning, and resilience in suffering (Myers, 2000;
Ryff & Singer, 1998). It is the basis of “moral muscle,” willpower, and stamina in the face of challenge (Baumeister & Exline, 1999; Emmons, 1999;
Seligman, 1999).
Unfortunately, the concept of virtuousness is often relegated to theology, philosophy, or mere naivete?. Fineman (2006) argued, for example, that virtuousness is culturally restrictive and narrowminded. Its relevance in the world of work or in the
management curriculum is often viewed with
skepticism or distain. A 17-year analysis of the
language appearing in the Wall Street Journal, for
example, revealed increasing usage of competitive and aggressive language in reference to business (e.g., compete, battle, defeat) but almost no
linkage between business and terms such as virtue, compassion, and integrity (Margolis & Walsh,
2003). Moreover, practicing managers frequently
reflect the attitude that virtuous concepts are irrelevant in the high velocity, resource constrained,
and turbulent battleground of business. “Virtuousness may be fine as a discussion topic at a latenight coffee bar, but it’s too soft and syrupy to be
taken seriously in my world of competitive positioning, customer demands, and shareholder performance pressure” (personal communication from
a corporate CEO). One result is almost total negligence of such topics in the business school classroom.
On the other hand—and this is the crucial
point—virtuousness can, and should, serve as a
fixed point to guide individual and organizational
behavior in times of ambiguity, turbulence, and
high-velocity change. This is because virtuousness
represents what people aspire to be at their best,
and those aspirations are universal and unchanging in essentially all societies, cultures, and religions (see Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Kidder,
1994).1 Contrary to Fineman’s (2006) claims, virtuousness is not culturally constricted and applicable only to North America. It represents Aristotle’s
“goods of first intent,” which have long been
claimed to be characteristics of the best of the
human condition. Without virtuousness as a supplement to ethics, in other words, no unchanging
1
For example, among the universal virtues that transcend national, cultural, and religious values are love, courage, integrity, kindness, compassion, fairness, wisdom, curiosity, forgiveness, gratitude, trust, and hope.
September
fixed point exists with which to manage change.
Moreover, when virtuousness is demonstrated,
positive individual and organizational outcomes
accrue.
One part of the research agenda emerging in the
field of positive organizational scholarship is an
investigation of the role of virtuousness in individual and organizational performance. An irony associated with virtuousness is that, by definition,
virtuousness is inherently desirable. No payback
or reward is required for virtuousness to be universally treasured. On the other hand, without a business case being made for virtuousness—i.e.,
evidence of its relevance to organizational performance—it is usually ignored as a standard to
guide individual or organizational action.
Hence, a series of studies were conducted in
which virtuousness was assessed in various kinds
of organizations. In one, Cameron, Bright, and
Caza (2004) examined recently downsized organizations in a variety of industries, all of which were
facing environments characterized by high degrees of change. The research assessed members’
ratings of numerous organizationally facilitated
virtues such as compassion, integrity, forgiveness,
trust, and optimism (concepts included on lists of
universally valued virtues, e.g., Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Empirical results revealed that virtuous
organizations significantly outperformed less virtuous organizations on a series of outcome measures, including profitability, productivity, innovation, quality, customer retention, and employee
loyalty. In another study of the U.S. airline industry
after the tragedy of September 11th, the airline
companies demonstrating virtuousness universally outperformed other airlines—that is, they lost
less money, their stock price recovered faster and
to a greater extent, and passenger miles remained
higher (Gittell, Cameron, & Lim, 2006). Studies of
health care, military, and governmental organizations facing financial exigency and layoffs encountered fewer of the problems accompanying
downsizing and performed higher than similar organizations that did not demonstrate the same virtuous orientation (Cameron, 1998; Cameron, Kim, &
Whetten, 1987; Cameron & Lavine, 2006). In other
words, in conditions of high-velocity, turbulent,
and complex environments, virtuous firms made
more money than less virtuous firms. Virtuous
firms recovered from downsizing and retained customers and employees to a greater extent than
nonvirtuous firms. And, virtuous firms were more
creative and innovative than nonvirtuous firms
(Cameron, 2003).
The implication of these research findings highlights the importance of a virtuous fixed point in
2006
Cameron
addition to an ethical fixed point in managing
change. That is, in order to cope effectively and
perform successfully in turbulent conditions, individuals and organizations must certainly avoid doing harm—that is, they must adhere to ethical
rules— but they must also act virtuously—that is,
they must foster virtuousness and the best of the
human condition. Virtuousness is associated with
positive outcomes, not just the absence of negative
outcomes. Virtuousness produces positive energy
in systems, enables growth and vitality in people,
builds social capital, and enhances the probability
of extraordinary performance (see Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003). Virtuousness pays dividends.
Doing good helps organizations to do well (Cameron, Bright, & Caza, 2004). In conditions of turbulent change, virtuousness serves as an essential
fixed point—a benchmark for making sense of ambiguity—as well as a source of resilience, protecting the system against harm.
The reason that virtuousness has this kind of
impact is because of two core attributes: It produces an amplifying effect, and it produces a buffering effect. The amplifying effect refers to the
self-perpetuating nature of virtuousness. Specifically, virtuousness is contagious. People are inherently attracted to virtuous acts, so that when they
observe them, they are inspired by them (Sandage
& Hill, 2001). They are elevated by virtuousness, so
it tends to be reproduced (Fredrickson, 2003). In
organizations, this amplifying effect spreads and
expands and, eventually, becomes part of the
structure and culture of the firm (Cameron & Caza,
2002). At the individual level, when people work in
a virtuous environment, they tend to be more physically and mentally healthy (Ryff & Singer, 1998;
Weiner, 1993). Virtuous individuals tend to make
better decisions (Staw & Barsade, 1993) and to be
more creative (George, 1998). At the interpersonal
level, virtuousness is associated with affiliative
feelings (H…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment